"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Glenn Beck Attempts a Laughable Make Over as a LibertarianIt took me a few days to stop laughing.Glenn Beck is rebranding himself asget thisthe alternative to far-right, far-left polarized debates on cable news, dominated by people yelling at each-other.We're not going to play in that crazy space as a network," he announced earnestly.The irony meter just died. Hypocrisy and chutzpah had a child.....Glenn Beck used his 15 minutes of fame to cast himself as King of the Wingnuts, eventually becoming too extreme for even Roger Ailes to put up with on FoxNews.But Glenn Beck can read the tea leaves and the ratings. He can see that Sean Hannitys viewers are tanking post-election. Rush Limbaughs audience is aging out of existence and advertisers are looking elsewhere. And so the man who once described himself as a Rodeo Clown decided it was time for a new disguise.....In some ways, this new guise is clarifying because it definitively answers a lingering question about Beckis he sincere in his beliefs or was his right-wing rhetoric just showmanship, part of a business plan to appeal to an agitated audience?It was all just an opportunistic con job. And the dupes are the folks who bought into the shtick, carrying signs at Tea Party rallies that read Glenn Beck is my hero.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01...

Neo-liberals took "liberal" now clowns like Beck are taking "libertarian". So much for the convenience of labels.

"Oh yeah, I'm a liberal but not an FDR/Johnson "liberal" so I'm a libertarian but not like Beck or Stossel so ..."

Glenn Beck Attempts a Laughable Make Over as a LibertarianIt took me a few days to stop laughing.Glenn Beck is rebranding himself asget thisthe alternative to far-right, far-left polarized debates on cable news, dominated by people yelling at each-other.We're not going to play in that crazy space as a network," he announced earnestly.The irony meter just died. Hypocrisy and chutzpah had a child.....Glenn Beck used his 15 minutes of fame to cast himself as King of the Wingnuts, eventually becoming too extreme for even Roger Ailes to put up with on FoxNews.But Glenn Beck can read the tea leaves and the ratings. He can see that Sean Hannitys viewers are tanking post-election. Rush Limbaughs audience is aging out of existence and advertisers are looking elsewhere. And so the man who once described himself as a Rodeo Clown decided it was time for a new disguise.....In some ways, this new guise is clarifying because it definitively answers a lingering question about Beckis he sincere in his beliefs or was his right-wing rhetoric just showmanship, part of a business plan to appeal to an agitated audience?It was all just an opportunistic con job. And the dupes are the folks who bought into the shtick, carrying signs at Tea Party rallies that read Glenn Beck is my hero.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01...

LMAO, Carol and her new bff must have put up a thousand posts each proclaiming the genius of Glenda Beck.

Well, he said in 2010 that he was more interested in the entertainment end of politics than the news end.

My thought is that at exactly that moment the fundamental flaw in the Constitution will be revealed. The first line reads, "We the People..." and if "we the people" don't want to "owe" 16.5 trillion dollars to various nameless entities not enumerated in the Constitution then the vaunted document tells us clearly what to do about it.

<quoted text>I believe your first answer. You don't care if Obama is just a cardboard cutout of a commercial to make it appear as if someone's actually president, when the truth is Obama isn't in charge of anything and doesn't have a clue what's happening in government. He's just a prop for dupes.And, correct me if this is wrong, but the Treasury is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt and doesn't have any money.So, the question remains:Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?The Treasury can't generate money and is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt. You actually have to identify a source of money.Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

Oh, you want more detail, Treasury gets the money from revenues including the sale of debt instruments.

You schizoidtards need to make up your alleged "minds", is he all powerful bent bringing fundamental change to the US or is he a weak puppet? You've asserted both positions today you schizophrenic little freak.

What do I think he is? I think he's the second coming of Bush and can't understand why you retards don't worship the man. The only real difference between him and Bush is skin color so ...

"Well then," you say. "We'll never be able to get credit again after a thing like that!" To which I say, "It was credit that caused the problem in the first place." To which you reply, "Our entire system of government is based on capitalism and credit." To which I answer, "Not any more. From now on we pay cash. You don't like it? You take it up with my friend Lionel."

Ah. Sunday morning. Let's go over the list of things not done this week and see if we can catch up on some things.Looks like there were two questions that never got answered this week.And it looks like the same fraud Democrats that ran away from these questions all week are here today.Do any of you fascist Democrats have an answer to these questions nobody in the world has been able to answer:Where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?And;Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?And a bonus question:When will Obama formally declare a rebellion against the government of the United States and begin writing his own laws to suit his whim?It is a little humorous that it was the Democrats that used the word "fascist" to insult everything they didn't like, and now it is those same Democrats attempting to replace the constitutional republic with a fascist dictatorship.

<quoted text>Oh, you want more detail, Treasury gets the money from revenues including the sale of debt instruments.You schizoidtards need to make up your alleged "minds", is he all powerful bent bringing fundamental change to the US or is he a weak puppet? You've asserted both positions today you schizophrenic little freak.What do I think he is? I think he's the second coming of Bush and can't understand why you retards don't worship the man. The only real difference between him and Bush is skin color so ...

Come on, you know he's going to enlist the black panthers to take their dicks, I meant guns away

<quoted text>All right Carol, so how specifically did they profit and what's your source?Anybody can write a bunch of numbers down.

Perhaps you should do the research yourself?

In the meantime:

Angelo Mozilo, the former Countrywide Financial CEO charged with fraud and insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission, had a lot of "friends." The Democratic leadership in Congress just doesn't want you to know their names -- or the details of their loans from Countrywide.

What we know is that Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad were among the VIPs who received sweetheart mortgages under the "Friends of Angelo" program. What we don't know is how many other government officials also received such favors, or what exactly Countrywide expected in return.

<quoted text>The subject you're running away from concerns the limit of authority of an executive order.An executive order has no authority outside the Executive Branch of government. You have to first eliminate the Constitution from government to extend the authority of an execitive order beyond the Executive Branch of government.Now, try again. This time, stay on topic and answer the post.Well, dufus, an executive order isn't possible as long as the Constitution defines our government. An executive order is limited solely to the Executive Branch of government.However, Obama intends to install a fascist dictatorship where he can write his own laws to suit his whim.How do you feel about that?

My thought is that at exactly that moment the fundamental flaw in the Constitution will be revealed. The first line reads, "We the People..." and if "we the people" don't want to "owe" 16.5 trillion dollars to various nameless entities not enumerated in the Constitution then the vaunted document tells us clearly what to do about it.

<quoted text>I believe your first answer. You don't care if Obama is just a cardboard cutout of a commercial to make it appear as if someone's actually president, when the truth is Obama isn't in charge of anything and doesn't have a clue what's happening in government. He's just a prop for dupes.And, correct me if this is wrong, but the Treasury is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt and doesn't have any money.So, the question remains:Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?The Treasury can't generate money and is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt. You actually have to identify a source of money.Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

You're a boxer??

I'd have figured you're a Miniature Schnauzer.

Or perhaps a Rat Terrier.

But a boxer?? Not a chance.

Boxers are an intelligent breed.

That completely leaves you out.

But it leaves intact your passion for telling big, fat lies.

You midgets really have your self-esteem issues, don't you??

As far as Climate Change, anyone dumb enough to have bet that it would be Romney-Santorum for President, and that they had a chance of winning, is by definition an idiot!!

<quoted text>The core principle of the Constitution, and one of its most brilliant aspects is, it is written so the average person can easily read and understand it. It doesn't need interpretation. It only needs enforcement.If the Supreme Court says the sky is green, the sky doesn't change color tomorrow. It stays blue. Perhaps Obama will write an executive order changing the definition of "green" and "blue" to make it look like the sky submited to the all-powerful dictatorship. But, that may depend on what the definition of "is" is.It's obvious the Supreme Court is schizophrenic.There exists a ruling that any law that is vague or to complex to be understood by the average person is unconstitutional.How's this for an example of that:The members of Congress that actually wrote the ObamaKare law stated that their intent was a "penalty" written in the law.The members of the Supreme Court read the exact same text and concluded that there was a "tax" written in the law.Now, how on Earth can anyone say this law doesn't fit the requirement of the Supreme Court decision that any law that is vague is unconstitutional?The authors say "penalty".The Supreme Court reads that very same law and says "tax".That is the very definition of vague.This is just one of the many reasons ObamaKare is unconstitutional.Since it's so obvious this law is unconstitutional, why is our Supreme Court so disfunctional it can't see this obvious fact?

Agreeing with your ideas and your opinion of how America should be does not mean the the MAJORITY of us are wrong or dysfunctional. Almost every point you make about Obama is exactly the same things that Bush did. So for the many times over I ask were you in such an outrage when during the Bush years he signed EOs to allow spying on citizens without court order? Were you upset when he pushed through a new trillion dollar Medicare drug plan without paying for it? Were you pissed when you found out that thousands of troops had died looking for WMDs that were never there? Did it make you mad when the ATF let guns get away in Mexico during Operation Wide Receiver? Again, where was your outrage back then?

<quoted text>LMAO, Carol and her new bff must have put up a thousand posts each proclaiming the genius of Glenda Beck.Well, he said in 2010 that he was more interested in the entertainment end of politics than the news end.

Just "proclaimed" his common sense of connecting dots and exposing the liberal media's corruption of keeping people like you in the dark.

And loved his rally in D.C. Loved it. Remember the videos I posted at the time? And how uplifting and moving they were?

Never said he was a genius. Part entertainer...yes, that too.

But since Beck isn't part of the mainstream anymore, it doesn't matter anymore.

<quoted text>The core principle of the Constitution, and one of its most brilliant aspects is, it is written so the average person can easily read and understand it. It doesn't need interpretation. It only needs enforcement.If the Supreme Court says the sky is green, the sky doesn't change color tomorrow. It stays blue. Perhaps Obama will write an executive order changing the definition of "green" and "blue" to make it look like the sky submited to the all-powerful dictatorship. But, that may depend on what the definition of "is" is.It's obvious the Supreme Court is schizophrenic.There exists a ruling that any law that is vague or to complex to be understood by the average person is unconstitutional.How's this for an example of that:The members of Congress that actually wrote the ObamaKare law stated that their intent was a "penalty" written in the law.The members of the Supreme Court read the exact same text and concluded that there was a "tax" written in the law.Now, how on Earth can anyone say this law doesn't fit the requirement of the Supreme Court decision that any law that is vague is unconstitutional?The authors say "penalty".The Supreme Court reads that very same law and says "tax".That is the very definition of vague.This is just one of the many reasons ObamaKare is unconstitutional.Since it's so obvious this law is unconstitutional, why is our Supreme Court so disfunctional it can't see this obvious fact?

Look up Article III of the U.S. Constitution. You will find, in part:The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. As a strict constitutionalist do you recognize the hypocrisy in your rant against the Supreme Court?

<quoted text>The subject you're running away from concerns the limit of authority of an executive order.An executive order has no authority outside the Executive Branch of government. You have to first eliminate the Constitution from government to extend the authority of an execitive order beyond the Executive Branch of government.

Now, try again. This time, stay on topic and answer the post.

Well, dufus, an executive order isn't possible as long as the Constitution defines our government. An executive order is limited solely to the Executive Branch of government.However, Obama intends to install a fascist dictatorship where he can write his own laws to suit his whim.How do you feel about that?

Hi, greaseballI'll need you to hand over those guns you use to overcompensate for being a tiny dicked midget. NOW!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.